Is your sunscreen doing more harm than good?

Follow the author of this article

Follow the topics within this article

A chance conversation back in May with Bryan Johns, co-founder of IS Clinical, a high-end US cosmaceutical line, led me down an SPF rabbit hole. I’m not sure I’ve fully emerged.

It wasn’t even sunny and we weren’t meant to be discussing sun products, but when I find myself with a skin expert – Johns’s specialities are biochemistry and genetics – I want to know where they stand on the ‘is it better to wear SPF all year round, despite the chemicals?’ debate.

‘It’s definitely better to wear SPF. But make sure your brand uses encapsulation,’ said Bryan, not even blinking. Whaaaat? Micro-encapsulation (Me) is a process that seals potentially harmful nanoparticles (the ones that sink deep into the dermis) with a coating, to stop them having their wicked way with your skin. Who knew? Hardly any of the sun-care brand press offices I spoke to, as it happens.

Turns out that some ingredients in the average SPF product ring alarm bells in the dermatology world: oxybenzone, avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, octocrylene, 4-methylbenzilidene camphor and octinoxate. ‘Many sunscreens degrade on the skin and create free radicals, a form of oxidation that causes premature ageing,’ says Dr Marko Lens, founder of the Zelens skincare brand (which has a line of SPF that, like IS Clinical, uses Me).

It gets worse. Some of those chemicals, including oxybenzone, are suspected hormone disruptors, while retinyl palmitate (a form of vitamin A) has been linked to skin damage.

Blimey. Not wanting to spread alarm, I asked Shabir Daya, the sane, soothing pharmacist and co-founder of victoriahealth.com, for his view. ‘Octinoxate,’ he emailed, ‘though considered the safest of all chemical sunscreens, is thought to affect the endocrine system and may impact on the reproductive system and thyroid gland. if you’re an occasional user, the risk is low. But for those who use an SPF product almost daily, the risk factor may be much higher.’ Not so soothing, Shabir.

Unfortunately, as Dr Lens explains, ‘micro-encapsulation is expensive. If I tell a patient my SPF costs £55, they look dubious. Yet they’ll spend £150 on other anti-ageing creams.’ Does that mean standard SPFs are falling short? Audible snorting. Dr Lens is not a fan of the sun-care industry. He’s not alone. Earlier this year, consumerreports.org (a not-for-profit Us organisation) found that out of 58 suncreams, 20 tested at less than half of their SPF number. As a reminder: while UVB rays burn, UVA are the rays that cause long-term damage. Yet many SPF products focus on the former.

Another often-ignored ‘detail’: factor 30 (allegedly) protects against 97 per cent of UVB, factor 50 against 98 per cent. That’s a lot more chemicals for potentially small gain. Then there’s the issue of quantity. ‘If you’re reapplying the correct amount every two hours, you should get through a 30ml tube each day,’ says Dr Lens. ‘But who does that? Not even me.’

There is an alternative to pricey Me SPFs: ‘physical’ sunscreens that use zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, which sit on the skin rather than penetrating it. Historically, they’ve made the skin look chalky. But cutting-edge beauty brand Niod is set to launch survival, a lightweight physical SPF that targets pollution, free radicals and infrared – for £20-£25.

Actually, I can think of two more solutions. Shade and a sun hat. They’ll never catch on.